[personZ]

Either way, differentiated companies -- apple -- require completely different strategies than nondifferentiated -- samsung.

How is Apple differentiated? To a user that wants a smartphone to send emails, visit websites, play fantasy football, take pictures, etc, Apple is every bit in competition with Xiaomi as Samsung is. To many, many users, smartphones are effectively a commodity now.

Which is why Apple devices feature some of the best screens, the best cameras, the best processors. Any illusions that Apple isn't fighting the competitive fight, and hard, is just contrived nonsense. They are fighting damn hard to make a compelling case for their devices, and doing a good job at it.

whereas Apple doesn't need (or want!) the bottom

Apple still makes and sells the iPhone 4S, a three year old device. You can get this in the $200-ish range. Further most of Apple's pricing has been contingent upon the scam that are cell phone contracts, where right now you can get the iPhone 5, for instance, for "$0". That is, by most definitions, the "low end".

[beagle3]

Apple stopped selling it on their website. I heard they've stopped producing it and what you see in stores now is the remaining stock - what's your source that they're still making it?

Furthermore, the virgin mobile link you gave is for no contract - but locked phone. While it's not comparable to $200-with-a-2-year-contract, it is also not comparable to an unlocked phone.

[personZ]

Apple stopped selling it on their website.

Most competitive makes don't sell their devices on their website at all. That really doesn't demonstrate anything.

Not only does Apple still manufacture the 4S, they recently restarted production of the iPhone 4 (sans S) for the developing world. I would cite this, but you can find references everywhere and with ease, so that hardly seems necessary.

[beagle3]

> Most competitive makes don't sell their devices on their website at all. That really doesn't demonstrate anything.

And yet, Apple does, so it's a hint. They've been selling 4S on their website up until a month ago.

> I would cite this, but you can find references everywhere and with ease, so that hardly seems necessary.

It took you longer to write this than it would have to google a reference and post it. But then you would have noticed that (a) it is all rumors, and (b) it is from February - 8 months is a long long time in manufacturing.

[personZ]

And yet, Apple does, so it's a hint.

Markets have segments. Apple decided to sell their 4S through other channels in the US (they still sell it on their site in Brazil, which I guess by your logic proves that they still manufacture it. That is a country of 200 million), likely to continue this absurd and so easily disproven myth, repeated in here, that they only chase the high end.

But then you would have noticed that (a) it is all rumors, and (b) it is from February - 8 months is a long long time in manufacturing.

It actually isn't hard at all, nor are they rumor sites. I'll give you a hint -- Apple moved all iPhone 4s and 4 production to a manufacturer called Pegatron. And before you implore me to provide the research for you, how about you demonstrate a single credible source that Apple ever stopped manufacturing it?

[beagle3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone#Model_comparison says it is discontinued. If it's so easy to cite a credible site that says it is still in production, why don't you just do it?

No, wikipedia isn't credible. Can you find a source that says the 2007 first generation iPhone is no longer in production? By your logic, it is still in production.

It's possible that you are a party to non public knowledge. All power to you. But the public knowledge I was able to find does not support your assertion.

[anewcolor]

have a reference that isn't a rumor site?

[vinceguidry]

> Apple still makes and sells the iPhone 4S, a three year old device. You can get this in the $200-ish range. Further most of Apple's pricing has been contingent upon the scam that are cell phone contracts, where right now you can get the iPhone 5, for instance, for "$0". That is, by most definitions, the "low end".

No, the consumers on the real low end of the cell phone market can't afford or can't get approved to have a contract. Most phone makers chase this market in some way, Apple doesn't.

[personZ]

Most phone makers chase this market in some way, Apple doesn't.

Except that they still make and sell the iPhone 4s. That is absolutely and undeniably chasing the "very low end" market (it's $199 no contract, which is pretty bottom tier).

http://www.virginmobileusa.com/shop/cell-phones/iPhone4S-8GB...

Now I suppose we can just keep arguing this down, but historically Samsung was "Chasing the low end" because their devices were $0 on a contract (ergo, in the $600 range. The iPhone 5s is currently $0 on a contract). Now that floor keeps falling, Apple is selling a $200 device, and we're still going to argue that they super don't care about the low end, and they're some sort of exclusive device despite burger flipping teenagers buying it?

[blinkingled]

>How is Apple differentiated?

Don't forget marketing. I don't think anyone plays the marketing game better than Apple. They are essentially marketing themselves as different and the fact that it works is nothing short of miraculous in the face of actuality!

[mwfunk]

Samsung spends significantly more on marketing their mobile devices than Apple does. Not just a little more, a lot more [1]. Not just advertising, but deals with carriers to pay bonuses to retail staff for selling the devices. Microsoft doesn't spend quite as much promoting Windows Phone and the Surface, but it's still a lot more than Apple [2].

Marketing, at best, gets customers in the door. It doesn't generate brand loyalty or repeat customers, and marketing alone certainly doesn't sustain a company or product line for years (or decades!) on end. The "Apple is all marketing" trope is usually invoked in discussions that are more about tribalism than analysis, by otherwise-rational people making a conscious decision to not accept the fact that there are other rational people in the world who see value in things that they don't.

I'm sure there's no shortage of people who will read this and immediately have a knee-jerk reaction along the lines of, "yeah, OK, maybe Apple spends way less on marketing than those other companies, but that just proves that they have magically effective marketing, because there's no other possible explanation for their success!" If there is a litmus test for rationality, they just failed it. A more plausible explanation is that success in business is a combination of a lot of different things- every company/tech/device/platform has a unique fingerprint of pros and cons that help it or hurt it in different market segments, and there is no perfect combination of any of those things. It's the ability to say, "I don't see value in this, but I can see how other people who care about different things might like it". This is an incredibly valuable ability to have, and people should be actively cultivating it if they want to make a positive difference in the industry.

[1] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142412788732409640... [2] https://twitter.com/asymco/status/396253597551570944

[personZ]

Samsung spends significantly more on marketing their mobile devices than Apple does.

Samsung is estimated to have spent, in total, $364 million in 2013 in the US. Apple is estimated to have spent $350 million. Is that really "significantly more", especially given that Samsung's total mobile device market is wider than Apple's (e.g. feature phones and so on).

Indeed, thinking in terms of purely smartphones -- I see at least four Apple ads for every one Samsung ad I see. Maybe it's just my market (Toronto area), but there is absolutely no question that Apple's conventional ad spend, and their partnerships with carriers (that pollutes the numbers a bit), absolutely dwarfs Samsung's.

But of course Apple succeeds because they achieve excellence in all areas. As I mentioned elsewhere, they sure as hell are trying to compete, and anyone that argues that they live on some other plane, free of competition, is deluded.

The "bonuses to retail staff" thing, as an aside, seems to be some invention that appeared to justify Android sales, which clearly had to be caused by nefarious interference than consumer choice.

[IBM]

Marketing isn't just advertising. The last chart illustrates the massive difference in marketing spend between Apple and Samsung.

http://www.asymco.com/2013/04/02/the-cost-of-selling-galaxie...

[personZ]

The number I gave was Samsung and Apple US spend for promotions on mobile. The Asymco link you gave is for Samsung Electronics, which is the whole that makes televisions, cameras, printers, semiconductors, and so on. That number is a garbage comparison, but somehow, and conveniently, it is the one that is always referenced when pushing the "Samsung advertises so much more" angle.